Why Duke's Ark is Sinking Fast
Budikka666
thoroughly incapable of getting it, even if he wised-up and tried as
hard as he could.
The non-existent global flood, that is. Despite the Bible quite
explicitly placing it 890 years before Abram according to a genealogy
in Genesis, Duke cluelessly insists that it could have happened at any
time in the last 4.5 billion years!
This cheesy assertion, which I'll call "Flood-At-Random-Time" (FART)
came straight out of his dumb ass. There's zero evidence for it and
multiple lines of solid evidence *against* the Genesis flood story
being true.
Despite repeated requests that he support his claims, he's never been
able to even pretend he can offer support for anything he's said
regarding a global flood (or anything else, for that matter).
Rather than admit he's drunk on his own misplaced sense of self-
impotance, Puke will spew yet another lie on top of the heap he's
already vomited up. That used to be a speed bump, didn't it, Hurl?
Now it's a mountain of lies and you're tripping all over it!
Rather than admit that he's been backed so tightly into a corner that
modern boat builders use his ass to verify their T-Squares are true,
he reflexively spouts each and every bizarre claim that crosses his
mind (it's a short trip), including the one that perhaps the flood
wasn't aimed at humans, but some other "kind" of sentient, pre-human
life-form.
This is what's commonly known as a "Big Lie, Usually Fat and
Fluffy" (BLUFF), since the Bible itself makes it expressly clear that
it was humans who were targeted, and that the flood took place during
a time of civilisation, during a time of viniculture, during a time of
advanced boat-building skills. There's no "prehistory" to it in the
Bible story. It's all recent civilisation.
The Bible books were not written in chapter and verse, but in one
continuous text. There was no chapter 11 in Genesis. There is no
announcement in the text, no demarcator, no change in tone or style,
no indication whatsoever that *anything* is significantly different in
what we now know as chapter 10 as compared with what we now know as
chapter 11. There's a story in 10. It's continued in 11. There's a
genealogy in 11, there's one in 10.
And there's an unbroken genealogy which spans the first 11 chapters,
which names every father and son from Adam through Abram with the ages
at which those sons were born.
The entire time period is some 2K years, with the flood right in the
middle, some 890 years before Abram. There is no "prehistory"
according to the Bible.
Duke is too profoundly cowardly to even begin to directly engage with
this specific genealogy and these specific ages. Mention it to him
and all you will see is a dust trail stretching from you to the
nearest Bible commentary!
You'll see Usenet's most hypocritical Bible advocate **COMPLETELY
ABANDONING** what he claims is his "God's Word" and desperately diving
for cover behind some commentators who evidently know better than
those anonymous scribes who were (we're expected to believe) inspired
by some god all those years ago.
The joke is that this period only became hastily and conveniently
labeled "prehistory" when science for the first time, in the harsh
light of reality, laid the Bible's best cards openly on the table and
we all saw quite clearly that all it had was a pack of lies.
There weren't any chordates prior to some 550 million years ago, so
that lets anything human-like out of the question, unless Puke is
trying to sell us a flood story that was aimed at civilised
cephalopods (octopus, squid, and the like). LoL!
Since there were no humans (or any bipedal hominids) prior to some 4
million years ago, and no beings of the genus Homo prior to 2.5
million years ago, Duck & Run's pretence at a 4 billion year scenario
makes him just "Another Stupid Simpleton Without an Iota of Possible
Evidence" (ASSWIPE). But that's what you get with Duke Pukem. He's a
fluent (or is that flatulent?) speaker of Moronese.
The earliest civilisations (the Minoans, the Egyptians, the Kushites,
cities like Çatalhöyük, Great Zimbabwe, Harappa, Mohenjo Daro) are
known only within the last 10K years, so we know the flood couldn't be
outside of that time frame.
Widespread viniculture is harder to pin down, but it was somewhere
between 4K and 10K years ago, and advanced boat-building skills are
probably not much older than Egyptian civilization, where relatively
simple sail boats were being built some 5K years ago.
All of this places the Noahic flood (according to what the Bible
itself says) within the last 10K years. According to Bible genealogy,
it was some 4.2K - 4.3K years ago.
Puke desperately tries to pretend that anything prior to Genesis 11
was "prehistory", but what Earl Webfoot is currently clinging to turns
out not to be a life raft, but a used condom, because Duke has shot
his load.
Nothing he is claiming fits what his own Bible says! And, of course,
there's zero evidence whatsoever, not 4K years ago, not 40K years ago,
not 4 billion years ago in any form, in any rocks, in any place
anywhere on Earth that there ever was a global flood.
In addition to being fiction, the Bible story isn't even logical
unless you interpret it in the only intelligent way possible: a legend
that the Bible writers purloined from the Sumerians, via the
Babylonians, during the Jewish exile; a legend based on a true story
of a local, extensive flood which was so old even then, that it had
already become a myth.
So if Duck & Run wants to make a case for his 4.5 billion year
blather, he needs to actually do it, not assert it. He needs to find
the guts to seriously engage the extensive and substantial criticisms
that have been made of his claims, and present substantially more than
what he's offered so far: Supportless Histronics In Toto (SHIT) in
defense of them.
He needs to offer evidence or rationale, or admit that *all* available
evidence denies a global flood at *any* time in Earth's history. As
of right now, the only incontestible evidence he's provided us with is
that he thinks he's going nowhere fast. He doesn't have the smarts to
realise he's already nowhere, and has been for some considerable time.
Budikka
johac
Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
> It's not that Earl Weber just doesn't get it. It's that he's
> thoroughly incapable of getting it, even if he wised-up and tried as
> hard as he could.
>
> The non-existent global flood, that is. Despite the Bible quite
> explicitly placing it 890 years before Abram according to a genealogy
> in Genesis, Duke cluelessly insists that it could have happened at any
> time in the last 4.5 billion years!
>
<snip great post for brevity>
Bravo! <applause>
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
Geoff
> Duke cluelessly insists that it could have happened at any
> time in the last 4.5 billion years!
>
> This cheesy assertion, which I'll call "Flood-At-Random-Time" (FART)
When will I ever learn not to drink coffee near my laptop.
> Despite repeated requests that he support his claims,
Duke never supports any claims, flood or otherwise. He assumes that they are
all manifestly true.
duke
>It's not that Earl Weber just doesn't get it.
Oh, bud the dud, I keep telling you that nobody knows, including me and you, if
there was a global flood of the biblical type or not.
You keep trying to say that science can define the whole geology of the earth
over 4.5 billion years, and science can't.
You lost this argument years ago. Why not just find something else I can kick
your butt on.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
wrote:
><snip great post for brevity>
>Bravo! <applause>
Didn't understand it, did you?
I didn't even bother to read it. She can't offer any new information, and I
kicked her butt years ago on the flood issue.
duke
>> This cheesy assertion, which I'll call "Flood-At-Random-Time" (FART)
>When will I ever learn not to drink coffee near my laptop.
>> Despite repeated requests that he support his claims,
>Duke never supports any claims, flood or otherwise. He assumes that they are
>all manifestly true.
Sure I did. Bud the dud tries to claim the earth is only 6000 years old, and
the flood, if there was one, would have to have occurred in that time span. She
gets her panties in a twist everytime I tell her no one knows the geologic
history of the world over the last 4.5 billion years.
Watch this:
Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
"The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters 1-11
are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life. They
are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe
and of mankind."
Google search on "prehistory of genesis 1-11"
*****
http://startthinking.homestead.com/files/Genesis_Paper.doc
So Pius XII suggests to exegetes a daring synthesis with respect to a
hermeneutic of Genesis ch. 1- 11: the first eleven chapters of the book of
Genesis employ simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of an
uncultured people to express those truths of history fundamental to our
salvation. In short, there is a solid core of history, as it were, buried under
the language and popular mentality of the ancient Hebrew.
What is that core of historical fact in Genesis 1 - 11? The Pontifical Biblical
Commission in 1909 gives the following answer, which has never been withdrawn in
any way since 1909. James Stenson says " the official document states that the
literal historical meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis could not be
doubted in regard to":
1.) the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time
2.) the special creation of man
3.) the formation of the first woman from the first man
4.) the unity of the human race
5.) the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice,
integrity, and immortality
6.) the command given by God to man to test his obedience
7.) the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil
under the form of a serpent
8.) the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence
9.) the promise of a future redeemer.
With respect to any other dimension of Genesis 1-3, the literal sense must be
examined more fully by exegetes. So 1 - 9 form the historical core of truths
fundamental to our faith expressed in Genesis ch. 1- 3, the truths around which
the ancient Hebraic authors either elaborated a story or collected a popular
tradition or recorded a primitive pre-history.
*****
http://books.google.com/books?id=WPt7NB9GFu0C&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=
prehistory+of+genesis+%221+11%22&source=web&ots=k965YPQn2A&sig=
T1YPXZ12c_rpgMLBR6EjvD6TiFk#PPA63,M1
"Genesis 1-11 is called prehistory because it predates any history of Israelite
history; it is actually a theological preface to the whole of salvation
history."
*****
655321
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> Oh, bud the dud, I keep telling you that nobody knows, including me and you,
> if there was a global flood of the biblical type or not.
More uncertainty about the Babble, Earl? Gee, the questions keep
stepping on and squashing the alleged answers, don't they?
--
655321
"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi
Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
> In article <h32t239b59tl7oq1jdvhv7puqcg759d...@4ax.com>,
>
> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Oh, bud the dud, I keep telling you that nobody knows, including me and you,
> > if there was a global flood of the biblical type or not.
>
> More uncertainty about the Babble, Earl? Gee, the questions keep
> stepping on and squashing the alleged answers, don't they?
>
> --
> 655321
> "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi
We already been thru this with Yang v Duke.
Am no fan of Duke's but leave the guy alone.
Budikka666
> In article <h32t239b59tl7oq1jdvhv7puqcg759d...@4ax.com>,
>
> > Oh, bud the dud, I keep telling you that nobody knows, including me and you,
> > if there was a global flood of the biblical type or not.
>
> More uncertainty about the Babble, Earl? Gee, the questions keep
> stepping on and squashing the alleged answers, don't they?
>
> --
> 655321
> "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi
My private bet was that, even in this forum, where Duck & Run can
fully pursue the discussion he always lies that I'm running from, he
would:
1. Not even try to pretend he could address the material
2. Not even try to support his inane claims with rationale or
evidence
3. Do do what he *always* does, which is Duck & Run.
I won.
Budikka
Cary Kittrell
...but not before:
3a: backing towards the door, while threatening "Well...
well... well, OK BUT GOD'S GOING TO GET YOU IN THE END".
Duke can never mount an adequate defense of God's actions -- and
that's His fault, not his fault -- so he will always resort
to the snivel of the kid who just got beaten up on the
playground: "Just you wait til my big brother gets here.
You'll see then, boy <sniff>".
-- cary
duke
wrote:
>In article <h32t239b59tl7oq1j...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Oh, bud the dud, I keep telling you that nobody knows, including me and you,
>> if there was a global flood of the biblical type or not.
>
>More uncertainty about the Babble, Earl? Gee, the questions keep
>stepping on and squashing the alleged answers, don't they?
No, my story is consistent. Bud claims there was no flood, and part of her
claim is that she states the earth is only 6000 years old.
duke
wrote:
No, no - let'em go. They can never support their claims.
duke
Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
*****
http://startthinking.homestead.com/files/Genesis_Paper.doc
duke, American-American
Cary Kittrell
Is this just classic doe snot, or does it have some
relevance to what I just wrote?
If the latter, then what is the relevance?
-- cary
Limbo Katt *~
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:h752331krffrbrc04...@4ax.com...
>> What is that core of historical fact in Genesis 1 - 11? The Pontifical
>> Biblical
> Commission in 1909 gives the following answer, which has never been
> withdrawn in
> any way since 1909. James Stenson says " the official document states that
> the
> literal historical meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis could
> not be
> doubted in regard to":
> 1.) the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time
> 2.) the special creation of man
> 3.) the formation of the first woman from the first man
> 4.) the unity of the human race
> 5.) the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice,
> integrity, and immortality
> 6.) the command given by God to man to test his obedience
> 7.) the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the
> devil
> under the form of a serpent
> 8.) the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of
> innocence
> 9.) the promise of a future redeemer.
>
And not one shred of evidence any of the above is more than old myths and
fables....
Lucifer
> On 23 Apr 2007 20:55:21 -0700, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >It's not that Earl Weber just doesn't get it.
>
> there I have a brain of the human type or not, but it's safe to assume I don't.
>
> You keep trying to say that science can define the whole geology of the earth
>
> I lost this argument years ago. Why not just find something else You can kick
> my butt on?
I just ran it through my new Duke to English Auto-Translator (Pat-
Pending)
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil
and General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist, BAAWA Lowly Evilmeister and tamer of the Demon Duck
of Doom
Convicted by Earthquack
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
DärFläken
> No, my story is consistent. Bud claims there was no flood, and part of
> her
> claim is that she states the earth is only 6000 years old.
Because she's going by what the bible itself says.
Phil MacDouglass
you think the flood happened with the last 4 million years, and it killed
humans, then you disagree with parts of the bible!
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:a72t23p0aa951on65...@4ax.com...
Budikka666
> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:00:55 +0000 (UTC), c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
> > Kittrell) wrote:
It's classic "does not have a functional brain" from Duke. No
surprises there.
Take careful note of this, all of you. It reveals what a compulsive
liar Duck & Run truly is in all of the threads I start, where he comes
sniffing and drooling like a rabid dog, posting one-line lies about
how *I* run away, how *I* won't discuss anything, and yet what does he
have to offer? Nothing.
Here he is, in a dedicated thread, open for discussion, where he could
lay out his evidence and rationale for everyone to see, where he could
give me the pasting he lies that he has already done, where he could
put his claims of my "running and hiding" to the test, and we find out
that it's not me running from the evidence, it's not me hiding from
the facts.
Exactly as I expected, he's too cowardly to actually address the
arguments.
He cannot find a single piece of evidence or rationale to support his
claims.
He cannot find a thing to overturn the scientific evidence against his
position.
Instead, he hypocritically abandons the "Holy Word" of his god and
unaccountably runs and hides behind some vague Bible "commentary" that
doesn't even begin to address the specific issues and questions I've
raised! LoL!
That's about as pathetic as I've seen him get and I've seen some truly
shameful displays over the years from him.
Budikka
Mike
> Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
> the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
>
> "The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
> beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters 1-11
> are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life. They
> are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe
> and of mankind."
No, someone who read the bible CENTURIES after it was written clearly
states that as their opinion. And, if there was no people during the
flood, then who was Noah? If there WAS people during the flood, then the
flood could have been no more than 30-40,000 years ago at most (since
they didn't have the know-how to make boats of ANY kind before then) and
Mt Everest was pretty well the same hight then as it is now.
Either way you're screwed, fuckwad.
duke
wrote:
>Maybe yer illiterate Puke? I found it great! You're just a retard! If
>you think the flood happened with the last 4 million years, and it killed
>humans, then you disagree with parts of the bible!
Which parts?
duke
wrote:
>And not one shred of evidence any of the above is more than old myths and
>fables....
do you have any evidence that you were born instead of hatched?
duke
>> "The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
>> beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters 1-11
>> are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life. They
>> are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe
>> and of mankind."
>No, someone who read the bible CENTURIES after it was written clearly
>states that as their opinion.
do you have any evidence for that?
> And, if there was no people during the
>flood, then who was Noah?
What do you mean "no people during the flood"? Who was Noah then?
> If there WAS people during the flood, then the
>flood could have been no more than 30-40,000 years ago at most (since
>they didn't have the know-how to make boats of ANY kind before then) and
>Mt Everest was pretty well the same hight then as it is now.
Actually at one time, mt everest was just a speed bump.
>Either way you're screwed, fuckwad.
When are you going to show some evidence for that?
duke
>> No, my story is consistent. Bud claims there was no flood, and part of
>> her
>> claim is that she states the earth is only 6000 years old.
>Because she's going by what the bible itself says.
Nope, the bible does not say that the earth is only 6000 years old. That's bud
the dud saying that.
Parsifal
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:53:26 -0500, DärFläken <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> No, my story is consistent. Bud claims there was no flood, and part of
> >> her
> >> claim is that she states the earth is only 6000 years old.
> >Because she's going by what the bible itself says.
>
> Nope, the bible does not say that the earth is only 6000 years old. That's bud
> the dud saying that.
Why then do fellow moronican christians support that?
Why do German, French, Italian christians seem much more intelligent
than American christians and don't pretend such nonsense?
Limbo Katt *~
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:52:18 -0500, "Limbo Katt *~"
> <durondae_@_hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>>And not one shred of evidence any of the above is more than old myths and
>>fables....
>
> do you have any evidence that you were born instead of hatched?
Irrelevant.
Budikka666
Listen to this pathetic hypocrite Duke demanding *evidence* from
others and then turning around and stating blithely that the flood
could have happened at any time in the last 4.5 billion years - a
claim for which he has zero evidence, and which is overthrown by a
ream of existing evidence agianst the global flood! What a startling
example of hypocrisy he truly is.
The Bible gives a genealogy (much of which has an attendant
chronology) from Adam to Jesus. Duck & Run **HAS NEVER ONCE FOUND THE
GUTS TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS ALL THOSE NAMES AND ALL THOSE AGES**. That's
because he's a coward, a hypocrite, and a liar.
This quite confidently dates the Earth, **BY BIBLE CHRONOLOGY**, to
only 6,000 or so years old. All of the young-Earth creationists and
47% of the adult population of the USA believe that Earth is less than
10K years old because they believe that's what the Bible tells them.
It's only because of the hard work of serious scientists that we know
the Earth is much older than this.
Once those scientists had done the work and Earth turned out to be 4.5
billion years old, the theists - the responsible ones among them, that
is - began to make excuses.
They embarked determinedly on their apologetic *Bible commentaries*.
The long-standing and confident conviction of all those millions of
theists for all thos ehundreds of years that the Earth was some 6K
years old was "suddenly" in error! Now they were claiming that they
had *misinterpreted* this same Bible - this same text, these same
verses!
Now, suddenly, unaccountably, miraculously, the start of Genesis
wasn't history, but *pre*history! Even though it was exactly the same
text. Now that same six 24-hour day plus one day of rest week of
creation somehow was being stretched to encompass 4.5 billion years!
LoL! Never mind that the creation story was still completely at odds
with the evidence.
The only way you can pretend the Bible claims the Earth is older than
some 6K years is by lying about the length of the creation week: by
lying that the specific 24-hour days described in detail in the
creation story were not actual 24 hour days at all, but "god days"!
LoL!
How pathetic is that?
The Bible makes it explicitly clear that they were 24-hour days just
like ours, and later Bible stories reference that creation week on
more than one occasion as defining the working week plus a day of
rest.
So yes, the **Bible* does say it was 6K years, and the Bible does
depict the fairy tale of a global flood taking place just 4,200 -
4,300 years ago - less than one thousand years before Abram.
BUT AS USUAL, THE BIBLE LIES.
Now if Duck & Run wants to make this claim for the flood taking place
at any time in the last 4.5 billion years, he needs to take his own
medicine and provide the evidence that he hypocritically demands of
others.
The rest of us have to look at what the evidence does show, and it
shows that there were no people on Earth 4.5 billion years ago, so the
flood could not have taken place 4.5 billion years ago! There goes
Duke's lie.
The Noahic flood could only have taken place in the last 10K years or
so, when there *were* people on Earth, who had some sort of
civilisation, and boat-building skills, and viniculture. Again, Duck
& Run **HAS NEVER ONCE FOUND THE GUTS TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS ALL THESE
FACTS**.
The rocks at the base of the Grand Canyon date back almost TWO BILLION
YEARS. We have a massive stack of geologic strata right there from
top to bottom, sitting like history books in a library, and nowhere,
NOT ANYWHERE in that stack of "geology books" is there anything that
says "the global flood was here".
Nothing. Nowhere. In any Rocks. Anywhere on Earth, no matter how
old they are, says that or anything like it.
In short, Duke is a pathetic little vacuous liar and hypocrite who
finally finds himself with nowhere to run and no more lies to spin.
He's finished.
Budikka
Mike
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:41:33 -0400, Mike <prab...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
>
>>> "The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
>>> beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters 1-11
>>> are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life. They
>>> are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe
>>> and of mankind."
>
>> No, someone who read the bible CENTURIES after it was written clearly
>> states that as their opinion.
>
> do you have any evidence for that?
Yeah, the fact that it's something that's added to one version of the
bible as auxiliary notes and isn't in the actual bible itself.
>
>> And, if there was no people during the
>> flood, then who was Noah?
>
> What do you mean "no people during the flood"? Who was Noah then?
That's what I'm asking YOU, idiot. Do you not read? There were no people
up until a couple million years ago.
>
>> If there WAS people during the flood, then the
>> flood could have been no more than 30-40,000 years ago at most (since
>> they didn't have the know-how to make boats of ANY kind before then) and
>> Mt Everest was pretty well the same hight then as it is now.
>
> Actually at one time, mt everest was just a speed bump.
Yeah, billions of years ago when there were no people.
>
>> Either way you're screwed, fuckwad.
>
> When are you going to show some evidence for that?
It's been shown. You're just too stupid to realize it.
Budikka666
> It's been shown. You're just too stupid to realize it.
That *definitely* sums up Duke! LoL!
[Rest of message snipped for brevity]
Budikka
Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
All 8,000,000,000 of us humanoids were neither born
nor hatched. We were pieced together by the humanoid
god known as 'Awful-God-Awful-Louse'.
Mike Painter
> It's not that Earl Weber just doesn't get it. It's that he's
> thoroughly incapable of getting it, even if he wised-up and tried as
> hard as he could.
>
> The non-existent global flood, that is. Despite the Bible quite
> explicitly placing it 890 years before Abram according to a genealogy
> in Genesis, Duke cluelessly insists that it could have happened at any
> time in the last 4.5 billion years!
>
> This cheesy assertion, which I'll call "Flood-At-Random-Time" (FART)
> multiple lines of solid evidence *against* the Genesis flood story
> being true.
>
I think he is just a sad, sick, lonely old man who has no friends and will
take attention anyway he can get it.
There are any number of threads that support this but his stupid flood
thread is a good example.
Note bel;ow that he says "Do I believe the flood story literal - no." and
yet the sick man has argued incesstenly since then for bith a bible flood
and a FART.
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:e00ta0h2c8v8nmtjc...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:12:16 -0700, "Darklady" <dark...@darklady.com>
> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
First, I'm not an expert on the bible.
Second, the bible especially the OT, is the beginning of the big picture,
God
introducing himself to us, etc. Before written communication methods came
about, communication consisted of stories passed from generation to
generation
revealing other things, like God and his relationship to us. Nobody knows
if,
or which, of the OT stories is literally true, in part or in whole.
All those OT stories were passed on in stories of death, killing, personal
destruction, war, etc. for evil done and for those standing against God.
This
is the nature of the old covenant (agreement) between God and man, one based
on
words written on stone tablets and fulfilled thru the blood of animal
sacrifice.
Do I believe the A&E story literal - no, not as a physical occurance, but an
explanation of man's inherent natural flaw to put one's self before others
and
before God. And the results thereof.
Do I believe the flood story literal - no. A story from long ago about how
God
punishes evil and those that stand against him. Equally brought out in the
golden calf story and Moses.
<snip>
Budikka666
> Budikka666 wrote:
> > It's not that Earl Weber just doesn't get it. It's that he's
> > thoroughly incapable of getting it, even if he wised-up and tried as
> > hard as he could.
>
> > The non-existent global flood, that is. Despite the Bible quite
> > explicitly placing it 890 years before Abram according to a genealogy
> > in Genesis, Duke cluelessly insists that it could have happened at any
> > time in the last 4.5 billion years!
>
> > This cheesy assertion, which I'll call "Flood-At-Random-Time" (FART)
> > came straight out of his dumb ass. There's zero evidence for it and
> > multiple lines of solid evidence *against* the Genesis flood story
> > being true.
>
> I think he is just a sad, sick, lonely old man who has no friends and will
> take attention anyway he can get it.
I agree. As soon as I quit responding to him (until he gets on his
knees and begs forgiveness for his sins!) he's been chasing me around
desperate for a word of acknowledgement.
It's so sad. If he weren't such a determined jerk I'd feel sorry for
him.
> There are any number of threads that support this but his stupid flood
> thread is a good example.
> Note bel;ow that he says "Do I believe the flood story literal - no." and
> yet the sick man has argued incesstenly since then for bith a bible flood
> and a FART.
He's also claimed on more than one occasion that he can "argue both
sides" of the flood story, which means he's a moron, and since he's
actually never been able to offer a shred of evidence for the side he
consistently does take, it also proves he's a liar.
> "duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:e00ta0h2c8v8nmtjc...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:12:16 -0700, "Darklady" <darkl...@darklady.com>
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> First, I'm not an expert on the bible.
>
> Second, the bible especially the OT, is the beginning of the big picture,
> God
> introducing himself to us, etc. Before written communication methods came
> about, communication consisted of stories passed from generation to
> generation
> revealing other things, like God and his relationship to us. Nobody knows
> if,
> or which, of the OT stories is literally true, in part or in whole.
In other words, he admits it could all be a pack of lies. The
hilarious thing is that he cannot even offer a means by which we can
determine which parts (if any) are true and which are fiction, so the
whole thing is useless.
> All those OT stories were passed on in stories of death, killing, personal
> destruction, war, etc. for evil done and for those standing against God.
> This
> is the nature of the old covenant (agreement) between God and man, one based
> on
> words written on stone tablets and fulfilled thru the blood of animal
> sacrifice.
>
> Do I believe the A&E story literal - no, not as a physical occurance, but an
> explanation of man's inherent natural flaw to put one's self before others
> and
> before God. And the results thereof.
>
> Do I believe the flood story literal - no. A story from long ago about how
> God
> punishes evil and those that stand against him. Equally brought out in the
> golden calf story and Moses.
> <snip>
Yet he's been lately consistently claiming it could have been a FART
in the last 4.5 billion years! What a piece of work he truly is.
Budikka
Budikka666
Now you've gone and done it - you've scared Duke right out of the
thread!
Budikka
Budikka666
http://tinyurl.com/2e7coy
Duke is now asserting this:
"...the bible places the flood sometime between Abraham and the
beginnings of the universe 14.5 billion years before."
LoL! He really has gone quite insane. So the flood could have been
even *before* there was an Earth according to Duck & Run.
But I have to admit right here and now that I was innacurate in my
measurement of the time of the Biblical flood in relation to Abram!
I'd said that the Biblical genealogy in Genesis 11:11-26 places the
Noahic flood 890 years before Abram. The Bible lies, of course,
that's no surprise, but it doesn't place the flood almost a thousand
years before Abram. It places it only 290 years before Abram. Not in
prehistory, as Duck & Run lies, but a mere 290 years before.
Here we go: 890 years gets us back to Noah's *birth*, but since the
flood purportedly took place when Noah was 600, we can lop half a
millenium off that:
Abram
back to Terah: 70
back to Nahor: 29
back to Serug: 30
back to Reu: 32
back to Peleg: 30
back to Eber: 34
back to Shelah: 30
back to Arpachshad: 35
The bible insists that Noah was 600 when Arpachshad was born. That's
also when the flood came (there's a whole other story in there), but
this means the flood actually came only 290 years before Abram.
Abram's time is typically placed at around 2166BC, this means the
flood was in 2456BC according to Bible chronology, or 4,462 years
prior to 2007.
If the flood wasn't then (and there's zero evidence that it was), then
the Christian god's Holy Word is quite simply LYING.
Budikka
duke
>According to the message he posted here:
>http://tinyurl.com/2e7coy
>Duke is now asserting this:
>"...the bible places the flood sometime between Abraham and the
>beginnings of the universe 14.5 billion years before."
But of course, bud the dud, but the earth has only been around 4.5 billion
years. You hadn't figured that out yet?
>LoL! He really has gone quite insane. So the flood could have been
>even *before* there was an Earth according to Duck & Run.
You dind't read both statements did you!!!
>But I have to admit right here and now that I was innacurate in my
>measurement of the time of the Biblical flood in relation to Abram!
Oh, this is going to be good.
>I'd said that the Biblical genealogy in Genesis 11:11-26 places the
>Noahic flood 890 years before Abram. The Bible lies, of course,
But of course it does, bubba dud. And all because you think God is out to get
you specifically.
>Here we go: 890 years gets us back to Noah's *birth*, but since the
>flood purportedly took place when Noah was 600, we can lop half a
>millenium off that:
>Abram
>back to Terah: 70
>back to Nahor: 29
>back to Serug: 30
>back to Reu: 32
>back to Peleg: 30
>back to Eber: 34
>back to Shelah: 30
>back to Arpachshad: 35
Hey bud the dud, did you get, or forget,about, this part:
*****
Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:
"The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters 1-11
are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life. They
are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe
and of mankind."
*****
Budikka666
of evasion, straw men, lies, hypocrisy, and hiding behind Bible
commentaries to obfuscate.
The Bible genealogy in Genesis 5 & 11 (something which Duck & Run has
consistently avoided directly addressing) is clearly fictional, but
from the fundie perspective, it gives names of fathers and the ages at
which they had their sons all the way from Adam to Abram without
interruption.
Instead of having the guts to face up to and directly address these
names and ages, Duck & Run has hidden behind a Bible commentary (which
likewise offers no rationale, evidence, or support for *its* claims)
and consigned everything prior to Abram to "prehistory".
This is where he's blowing his FART (Flood at Random Time) from. He
then builds a house on this sand, and claims that the flood could have
been at any time in the last 4.5 billion years.
The Bible genealogy places the flood just 290 years prior to Abram:
Abram
back to Terah: 70
back to Nahor: 29
back to Serug: 30
back to Reu: 32
back to Peleg: 30
back to Eber: 34
back to Shelah: 30
back to Arpachshad: 35
The Bible insists that Noah was 600 when Arpachshad was born. That's
also when the flood came (there's a whole other story in there which
I'll address later), but this means the flood actually came **ONLY 290
YEARS BEFORE ABRAM** according to detailed Bible chronology.
Abram's time is typically placed somewhere around 2166BC, this would
place the flood in 2456BC, or 4,462 years prior to 2007.
Duck & Run has never addressed the detailed genealogy - he runs and
hides behind a Bible commentary - which doesn't address it either!
So here are the issues that Duck & Run is ducking and running from so
far:
1.
The Bible places the flood just 290 years prior to the birth of
Abram. In what conceivable way does this constitute "prehistory"?
Prehistory is defined as the time before humans began recording
events. Since the Bible actually *does* record events (however
fictional they may be), the Bible itself shows what a lie Duck & Run's
claim is.
We have extra-Biblical records of events prior to the time when Abram
was purported to have lived. 290 years prior to his time in no way
qualifies as prehistory, not even remotely.
Those who wish to project the flood back to before this time need to
supply evidence or rationale. Duck & Run has proven beyond all
contention that he cannot do so.
2.
We have geological records all the way back to 4 billion years. The
Grand Canyon alone provides a detailed stack of these "geology books"
going back almost 2 billion years.
The entire geological column is found in several places, but nowhere,
in any rock record that geologists have been able to find, is there
any evidence of a *global* flood.
Duck & Run has proven by now that he cannot point to evidence of a
*global* flood anywhere. He's explicitly admitted that his recent
"petrified rain forest" claim is *not* evidence of a global flood.
For this reason, his comprehensive lack of an ability to estbalish a
flood, Duck & Run is prepared to outright LIE about what's in his own
Bible, to lie about what makes sense, to lie about what the evidence
shows, and to desperately carry the flood back to any time up to 4.5
billion years ago. Yes! rather than admit to being wrong, he will
make this much of a fundamental idiot of himself.
3.
There's lots of evidence of local floods at different times throughout
history. No one has ever denied that. There's evidence of extensive
flooding in the Middle East, from which, no doubt, the original legend
of the flood derived. This proves that *when there is a significant
flood*, the geological record *does* provide evidence of it. But a
local, even a regional, flood is not a global flood. And the
geological record provides no evidence of a *global* flood.
Duck & Run has proven by now that he dare not face this issue.
4.
The Noahic flood could not possibly have been *any time in the last
4.5 billion years* as Duck & Run lies, unless the Bible lies. If the
Bible lies about *when* the flood was, why should we trust that there
even was a global flood at all? The Bible not only explicitly dates
the flood at 290 years prior to Abram, it provides other clues as to
when it was.
According to the Bible tale, the flood took place during the time
humans were living on Earth. There weren't even any bipedal hominids
prior to some 5 million years ago, so the flood cannot have been
before then.
Duck & Run has consistently been too cowardly to address this and
bring in his 4.5 *billion* year claim by an order of magnitude to 4.5
million years.
The reason he won't do this is that he knows perfectly well that the
closer he allows the flodo to the present, the harder he will get
solidly nailed by the lack of geological evidence.
He erroneously thinks that if he can only keep the time frame back to
the entire hsitory of Earth, it will render the geolgical record vague
enough that he can hide his stupidity somewhere there.
He's wrong. As usual. His stupidity is too big to hide anywhere any
more.
5.
According to the Bible tale, the flood took place during the time
humans became "civilised" after a fashion - they lived in
communities. This has only been within the last 10,000 years.
Duck & Run has been consistently too cowardly to address this.
7.
According to the Bible tale, the flood took place during the time
humans had significant boat-building skills. Again, this has only
been within the last 10,000 years.
Duck & Run has been consistently too cowardly to address this.
8.
According to the Bible tale, the flood took place during the time
humans were capable of viniculture. Again, this has only been within
the last 10,000 years.
Duck & Run has been consistently too cowardly to address this.
9.
According to the Bible tale, the flood took place during the time
there were birds. This has only been within the last 200 million
years - wa-ay inside the time of Duck & Run's petrified 300 million
year old rain forest. He's too stupid to think about things like this
in his desperation to toss out every scrap he can desperately find to
shore up his failed "flood theory".
Duck & Run is too cowardly to address this.
There are lots more issues, listed in the 'flood series", but these
here really derive directly from his own Bible tale!
Budikka